Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1319/2016

Omaxe Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashok Kumar Chaudhary s/o Sh. Laxman Lal Chaudhary - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Phatak

22 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1319/2016

 

Omaxe Ltd., 302-303 Crystal Mall, Sawai Jaisingh Highway, Bani Park, Jaipur through Director & ors.

Vs.

Ashok Kumar Chaudhary s/o Laxmanlal Chaudhary r/o 21/80 Mansarovar, Jaipur.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1320/2016

 

Omaxe Ltd., 302-303 Crystal Mall, Sawai Jaisingh Highway, Bani Park, Jaipur through Director & ors.

Vs.

Smt.Manju Chaudhary w/o Ashok Kumar Chaudhary r/o 21/80 Mansarovar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 22.8.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

 

2

 

Mr. Sandeep Pathak counsel for the appellants

Mr.Pramod Sharma counsel for respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals are preferred against the similar order hence are decided by this common order.

 

The contention of the appellant is that as Municipal Corporation Kishangarh did not grant the approval for the plan therefore, the appellant were forced to cancel the scheme and there is no deficiency on their part. The Forum below has awarded interest on the deposit and further interest has been imposed on the interest so accrued hence dual interest is ordered which is not permissible and compensation is awarded on higher side.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and no interference is needed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the

3

 

impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the consumer respondent booked a plot with the appellants, paid money but in 2010 the scheme was cancelled and money was refunded but facts remained the same that from 4.4.2008 to 7.8.2010 the money was retained by the appellants.

 

The contention of the appellant is that they are not deficient as the Municipal Corporation has not granted approval to the plan but no documentary evidence has been submitted to support this contention. There is no evidence to the effect that the appellants were forced to cancel the scheme and even it has not been disclosed that on which date the scheme was get cancelled and after how many days the advance was returned. Hence, in view of the above when plots have not been allotted to the consumers it is deficiency on the part of the appellants and the Forum below has rightly ordered 18% interest on the deposit amount and further more for mental agony and cost of proceedings Rs. 50,000/- were rightly been saddled.

 

The contention of the appellant is that 18% interest is awarded on the deposit money and further on the amount

4

 

calculated above 15% interest is awarded which is not permissible. This contention seems to be sound when the Forum below has awarded interest from the date of deposit till its return the further interest should not be imposed.

 

Hence, the appeals are partly allowed. The respondents are entitled to claim interest on the deposit amount i.e. Rs.2,20,000/- from 4.4.2008 to 7.8.2010 when the amount was sent to the respondents by cheque. Order as regard to Rs.50,000/- is also maintained but order as regard to 15% interest from 8.10.2010 stands vacated.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm